Langrick v. Rowe
This text of 52 N.E.2d 964 (Langrick v. Rowe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Order affirmed, without costs, upon the ground that when the appellant applied at Special Term for an order authorizing her to withdraw the fund deposited with the City Treasurer pursuant to the terms of the partition judgment in the above captioned action, she failed to give notice of such application, as required by rule 32 of the Rules of Civil Practice, to the attorneys for all parties who had appeared therein or filed notice of claim to such fund. We do not pass upon the merits of the controversy. No opinion.
Concur: Lehman, Ch. J., Loughban, Rippey, Lewis, Conway, Desmond and Thacheb, JJ.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
52 N.E.2d 964, 291 N.Y. 756, 1943 N.Y. LEXIS 1852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langrick-v-rowe-ny-1943.